If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.

By ANNE JOLIS

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

That's not to say we're helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas's ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.

Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain's GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames "the bad weather."

I'd say what the most important part of that story is, is towards the bottom. Where it highlights the fact that a fraction of the money spent on questionable means to "shape" the climate, would go much further to making sure we have fewer casualties from the weather, and recover quicker from it.

Why spend trillions on something that we have no way of saying will work, when we can spend billions on things that we know WILL work? All while not destroying our economy.

In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.

I'd say what the most important part of that story is, is towards the bottom. Where it highlights the fact that a fraction of the money spent on questionable means to "shape" the climate, would go much further to making sure we have fewer casualties from the weather, and recover quicker from it.

Why spend trillions on something that we have no way of saying will work, when we can spend billions on things that we know WILL work? All while not destroying our economy.

1) Setting man as the creator

2) power....

Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
Ronald Reagan

We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
Ronald Reagan

Not really. Scientists have hypothesized that there is a relationship between global warming and extreme weather but there is no theory in place about it. And scientists are the first to admit that there are a lot of uncertainties in their understanding of how climate change affects weather and so the TCRP report is uncontroversial... at least to those of us paying attention.

Not really. Scientists have hypothesized that there is a relationship between global warming and extreme weather but there is no theory in place about it. And scientists are the first to admit that there are a lot of uncertainties in their understanding of how climate change affects weather and so the TCRP report is uncontroversial... at least to those of us paying attention.

Uncertainties? They haven't got a clue. All they have are boat payments that need to be paid.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

Not really. Scientists have hypothesized that there is a relationship between global warming and extreme weather but there is no theory in place about it. And scientists are the first to admit that there are a lot of uncertainties in their understanding of how climate change affects weather and so the TCRP report is uncontroversial... at least to those of us paying attention.

Really?

Global Warming and Extreme Weather
Studies show that global warming will increase the frequency or intensity of many kinds of extreme weather. While we can't attribute a particular heat wave or hurricane to global warming, the trends are clear: Global warming loads the atmospheric dice to roll "heat wave" or "intense storm" more often.

WASHINGTON — If you think the weather is getting more extreme, you're right — and global warming caused by human activity probably is the reason, according to a report released Thursday by a panel of government scientists.